GlassRace wrote:I'm a student of Fletcher Prouty, an advocate for 9/11 Truth, and a supporter of the Disclosure Project. And in 2008 I endorse Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

BARACK OBAMA (D)Top Contributors Goldman Sachs $421,763 [b][u]Goldman Sachs has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security[/u] as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry...

I didn't see any direct Endorsement, only knew You posted the article to start with...

I think I am going to support the whole slate. Just admit we have a Soviet Style system where we can vote for anyone we want, so long as it's a person Presented to us by folk behind a curtain, ala Wizard Of Oz.

I wonder what would happen If everybody voted for every person on the ballot?

Or if no bothered to vote?

I guess we are not there yet.

One thing is for certain, Young Barrack will be over run by Zbig and the rest of the Rockefeller Republican Neocons in drag once the first day in office sets in and He is Briefed for Hours by those who Present Reality to him.

I do find it hard to believe some Harlem precincts voted for Hillary Clinton Bush and not once for Barrack. Can anyone spell Diebold ?

The Senator from Illinois masquerades as a "peace candidate" - and then proposes the Americans invade Pakistan, the only Muslim nation that has The Bomb. After the U.S. has propped up the military regime for generations, and stunted democracy in a country of 165 million, Obama now thinks he can just walk into western Pakistan - Waziristan - to find and kill Osama bin Ladin. In the process, he would unite all of the Right and the Left opposition to the government in Islamabad, and give the generals no choice but to brandish The Bomb. Obama wants to add 100,000 new troops to the U.S. military. Now we know where they will be going: Waziristan, a place from Hell.http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=305&option=com_content&task=view

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

He added, "Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521

I think I am going to support the whole slate. Just admit we have a Soviet Style system where we can vote for anyone we want, so long as it's a person Presented to us by folk behind a curtain, ala Wizard Of Oz.

I wonder what would happen If everybody voted for every person on the ballot?

Think that'd fry the machines? :D Seriously, if Obama is the best we can hope for, there ain't no hope at all.

Starting from nowhere, Barack Obama has given the Clinton "machine" a run for their money, something which no other campaign has accomplished, or could even hope to accomplish. He had her in tears by the second state. Her hideously ensconced, supposedly invincible campaign has fallen into disarray, suffering from Keystone Cops infighting and financial problems. Given what Barack Obama has been able to accomplish against the supposedly untouchable Clinton "machine," imagine what headaches he can create for their shadow-government supporters once he's in office. That's what I'm talking about.

But that's not even the best part. The best part is how Barack Obama has made his inroads against what the late Aaron Russo called the Rockefeller candidate, Hillary Clinton. He's done it by galvanizing the one thing the neocons DO fear: the people, what Fletcher Prouty called, "the smoldering threat of vast populations." Barack Obama is the only candidate in the field to show any ability at all to MOVE "the smoldering threat of vast populations," the one thing the neocons/control group/shadow government/power elite/high cabal/secret team DOES FEAR. That's what I'm talking about.

I appreciate your comments, but the way I see it . . . waiting for some virgin messiah to "show up" in a field as ravaged with problems as U.S. politics is nothing more than veiled cynicism, rationalized indifference, self-made hopelessness, political paralysis, and turning the cheek. It's the worst possible mistake. And it leaves us much more prone to the divisiveness of propaganda, the infighting with which the 9/11 Truth scene was so easily infected being the perfect example. As locked down as the United States is right now, there will never be a candidate who can start from zero and go to blowing the lid off of 9/11 in one sentence. It's almost an "instant gratification" mentality to expect it, a bit over-anxious, a bit too tragically parallel to the blind patriotism exhibited by those zealots on the streets of New York who would take your 9/11 Truth head off before they listen to reason -- before they even listen. When healthy skepticism calcifies like that, into gullible ideology, into easily manipulated platforms, mini-states of nationalism, all so dutifully "Balkanized" against one another, that's a much more serious challenge to our freedom as Americans than the cover-up of 9/11 because it allows the cover-up of 9/11. And that problem, the problem of our isolated culture, fueled by our isolated mentalities, is the problem that Barack Obama, unlike any other candidate, knows how to overcome. He's kicking ass even as we speak. Ten states in a row and counting. He recognizes that right vs. wrong isn't the problem; political gridlock is the problem -- whether the hell any given position is wrong or not. As long as we stay gridlocked, a meaningful conversation, leading to meaningful progress, can NEVER happen. 9/11 Truth is dead in the water as long as this broken system of ours is left to fester in a cess pool of fractured cynicism. And that's why I support Barack Obama for President of the United States. And with 9/11 debunker John McCain as the alternative, the choice becomes all the more obvious. That's what I'm talking about.

As someone who marched on Ground Zero on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I certainly understand the sincere motives behind pushing for a full investigation into 9/11; I understand, and share, the outrage at 3,000 uninvestigated homicides swept under the rug. But I sense a darker manipulation trying to ride the backs of our outrage. Something along the lines of our "instant gratification" mentality as Americans making us a bit short-sighted as warriors, sidetracking us from the larger problem -- that this quest for the truth, for full disclosure, is a marathon, that nothing worthwhile EVER comes easy, and that us attacking each other is NOT the way. The better way is to join our forces, to "infiltrate" the system by backing such a once-in-a-generation candidate as Barack Obama, and move from there. That's what I'm talking about.

Articulate away! I wish a lot more people would do that here, a lot more often.

Starting from nowhere, Barack Obama has given the Clinton "machine" a run for their money...

No major "two-party" candidate starts from "nowhere." I posted a list of Obama's major corporate sponsors, above. I think he's as "owned" as all the other political hacks that get trotted out every four years to foist the illusion of "choice" on us.

February 20, 2008Today on Flashpoints Radio:An investigative report into Penny Pritzker, the 2008 campaign finance chairman for Barack Obama, who was a key mover and shaker in creating the sub-prime meltdown.Click to listen: http://flashpoints.net/index.html#2008-02-20

Given what Barack Obama has been able to accomplish against the supposedly untouchable Clinton "machine," imagine what headaches he can create for their shadow-government supporters once he's in office.

The best part is how Barack Obama has made his inroads against what the late Aaron Russo called the Rockefeller candidate, Hillary Clinton.

While Obama, on the other hand, is the Zbigniew Brzezinski candidate. I think we're back to Coke vs. Pepsi here, aren't we? btw, Barack says he's open to getting advice from the Dragon Lady herself: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=881_1203097397

He's done it by galvanizing the one thing the neocons DO fear: the people, what Fletcher Prouty called, "the smoldering threat of vast populations." Barack Obama is the only candidate in the field to show any ability at all to MOVE "the smoldering threat of vast populations," the one thing the neocons/control group/shadow government/power elite/high cabal/secret team DOES FEAR. That's what I'm talking about.

The neocons/control group/shadow government/power elite/high cabal/secret team are experts at MISdirecting vast populations through their phony "two-party system" and controlled news media/propaganda machine. That's what I'M talking about. Would you like a Coke or Pepsi with that Obamaburger?

With bold and original statements like this, it's easy to see what distinguishes him from the likes of a Hillary or McCain or a George Bush. Or is it?

“This century’s threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy." - Barack Obama(blah, blah, blah, bomb, bomb, Iran...)

I appreciate your comments, but the way I see it . . . waiting for some virgin messiah

Is that what I'm doing? Waiting for a "virgin messiah?" Hmm, hadn't considered that...

to "show up" in a field as ravaged with problems as U.S. politics is nothing more than veiled cynicism, rationalized indifference, self-made hopelessness, political paralysis, and turning the cheek. It's the worst possible mistake.

Some people would say that the worst possible mistake is falling for the same old recycled bullshit time after time, because that's what leads to hopelessness and indifference, which is exactly what the neocons/control group/shadow government/power elite/high cabal/secret team wants, and that sheepishly accepting their offered "choice" of either a Rockefeller or Brzezinski protege is a case study in cheek turning, but hey, what do they know, right? They're probably just the kind of cynics who'd ask for a fucking Sprite or Dr. Pepper, just to get some instant gratification, fer Chrissakes.

I sense a darker manipulation trying to ride the backs of our outrage.

Obama Hearts Nuke Giant ExelonWell isn't this a cozy little group: Obama, Exelon, and their consultant, Obama's main man David Axelrod. A partnership made in heaven for the nuclear giant Exelon, which has given "at least $227,000" to Obama's campaign.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/exelon

Subprime ObamaAs he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker -- now his national campaign finance chair -- scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967). He has also appointed several prominent pro-Israel advisors. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

Republicans and GOP-leaning "independents" (meaning, deep-dyed whites) are crossing over in herds to vote for Obama. They've gotten the message: happy days are here again, when the darkies smiled and were careful not to hurt our feelings by telling the truth. That's the kind of "change" we've always "hoped" for, by golly!

The white liberal/left, ineffectual and geographically scattered, are drawn irresistibly to the Black man who regales them with sweet nothings - literally, nothing in the way of the concrete policies for peace and social justice they claim to champion. His presence in their midst is enough. Besides, Obama is someone who is "capable of forging a progressive majority," they say.

That's a strange concept, since Obama doesn't act like a progressive, or claim to be one. But he has no problem with folks gathering around him. He's a real party guy.

The no-nonsense white men that rule society and cling to ownership of the world were harder nuts to crack; you've got to sign a prenuptial to get skin-tight with them. No problem. Before Obama even began to strut on the national runway, he'd won the approval of the Wall Street and military/industrial (and nuclear power) branches of the Money Family. Run-of-the-mill citizens will be barred from state court relief, so as not to jam up big corporations with their silly lawsuits. Energy companies can count on their usual subsidies. The "sanctity of contracts" will not be violated to save homeowners from foreclosure, no matter how deep the credit crisis becomes. The voracious military will be fed an additional 92,000 soldiers and Marines, regardless of what happens in Iraq, to be available for more wars. Most importantly - and this is the really smooth part of Obama's game - the ever-increasing military budget will make moot all of Barack's and Hillary's (near identical) promises about health care, affordable housing, the whole public agenda that has been dangled in front of those fans and groupies in the cheap seats.

Once he gets in office, many of the swooners will find out that he's already married to the Power Mob.

But that's OK. Obama knows his most enthusiastic supporters - the ones that claim him as their own as a matter of blood - will stick by him without complaint. Hell, their "leaders" show every sign of allowing him to wine and dine and make promises to everybody else BUT them, at least until he is comfortably in office - maybe for the entirety of his first term. For the time being, though, Black folks aren't even hearing what he's saying to the white men or anybody else - they're just enjoying the music: "It's been a long, a long time coming, but I know, a change gonna come."

Black folks aren't even hearing what he's saying to the white men or anybody else - they're just enjoying the music: "It's been a long, a long time coming, but I know, a change gonna come."

Oh no it ain't.

- Glen Ford

Obama is skipping African-American eventWASHINGTON -- Presidential politics will take center stage in New Orleans on Saturday at the annual "State of the Black Union" symposium, where the hottest topic is likely to be which candidate is there and which one isn't.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will address a largely African-American crowd of thousands in New Orleans' convention center, where thousands of the city's poorest residents sought shelter in squalid conditions after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Clinton's Democratic rival, is skipping the event. He'll focus instead on campaigning in Texas and Ohio in hope of delivering a knockout blow to Clinton in those states' presidential primaries March 4.

The Republican presidential candidates, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, also declined to attend the symposium, which television and radio talk show host Tavis Smiley organized and will host.

The danse macabre of US-style democracyNothing has changed. Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, another bomber, is anti-feminist. John McCain’s one distinction is that he has personally bombed a country. They all believe the US is not subject to the rules of human behaviour, because it is "a city upon a hill", regardless that most of humanity sees it as a monumental bully which, since 1945, has overthrown 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed 30 nations, destroying millions of lives. http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=471

You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. - Malcolm X

Once again we are supposed to believe that it was the leaked memo, or the red phone ad, or buyer’s remorse or some other such nonsense. In reality however, she won for the same reason George Bush has been president for eight years. She won because this country still uses Diebold and ES&S voting machines that have time and again altered the outcome of our elections. I don’t think I can say it any clearer than that.

As you can see from the map, the only counties where Obama won are also the counties that had secured, centrally counted, paper ballots.

Barack Obama has a long history of working with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and governors of Illinois, including the current Governor Rod Blagojevich, in doling government funding for housing development in Chicago. His history is hardly a model of success, except for the hundreds of millions in profits made by the chosen few slumlords.

“They were going after people for being slum landlords in one department and loaning them money in another,” said Alderman Freddrenna Lyle.

Obama now wants to bring this dog and pony show to Washington.

In Obama’s case, a whole gang of slumlords in Illinois made their “voices heard” by writing campaign checks to fund his rise to fame. But as long as the focus of the slumlord allegations remains solely on a crook named Rezko, the other members of the gang will not get the credit they deserve.

The truth about all the scams run by the political mafia operating in Illinois is only coming out now because of Rezko’s corruption trial, and if the Democrats want to lose any chance of winning the White House, all they have to do is nominate Obama.

The prosecution team is led by the US Attorney for Northern Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, of Scooter Libby fame; the same guy who put the last Illinois Governor behind bars and convicted a host of government officials from the Daley administrations...

If Obama had an ounce of respect for Democratic voters, he’d drop out of the race before the details of the corruption in Illinois spread to the rest of the country. If the leaders of the Democratic party had a lick of sense, they would inform Obama right now that under no circumstances will his name be on the ballot come fall.

Political junkies know the details of all the sordid scandals swirling around Obama in Chicago, but the average American voter does not have a clue.

After a month of research, I could no more support Barack Obama as the leader of this country than I could support another war profiteering Republican.

Any lingering doubts about Obama's status as an abject puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission ended this morning when the withered mummy of imperialism himself appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to campaign for Obama, urged on by his own moronic daughter, Mika Brzezinski, an Obama groupie and sycophant.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367 [video]

Zbig, who was kept in the closet for many months during the Carter administration because of his hideous Dr. Strangelove persona, portrayed Obama as a peace candidate who wanted to end the Iraq war and usher in peace in the Middle East. Zbig is an infamous Cold War hawk who has managed to re-invent himself in the eyes of some dupes by opposing the Iraq adventure, mainly because it is bad for imperialism.

Zbig is the mastermind of the Kosovo secession under KLA terrorist auspices, a gambit against Serbia and Russia to prepare a coming Operation Barbarossa II against Moscow. With the help of his son Mark Brzezinski, another top foreign policy controller of Obama, Zbig is also behind the new Euromissiles crisis involving US ABM installations in Poland. http://actindependent.org/ObamaMSNBC.pdf

Hope Abandoned: Obama Stands Up for Murder and PlunderEmpire Burlesque, March 30 2008(excerpt)

Well, it doesn't really get much plainer than this, does it? From AP:

Obama Aligns Foreign Policy with GOP

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

At a town hall event at a local high school gymnasium, Obama praised George H.W. Bush — father of the president — for the way he handled the Persian Gulf War: with a large coalition and carefully defined objectives. Obama began a six-day bus tour through Pennsylvania, the largest remaining primary prize in the contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton...

"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan...."

Obama is doing two things here, reaching out to two very different audiences, on different wavelengths. First, for the hoi polloi, he is simply pandering in the most shameless way imaginable, throwing out talismans for his TV-addled audience to comfort themselves with: "You like JFK? I'll be like him! You like Reagan? I'll be like him too! You like the first George Bush? Hey, I'll be just like him as well!" This is a PR tactic that goes all the way back to St. Paul the spinmeister, who boasted of his ability to massage his message and "become all things to all men." Obama has long proven himself a master of this particular kind of political whoredom -- much like Bill Clinton, in fact, another champion of "bipartisan foreign policy" who for some strange reason got left off Obama's list of role models.

But beyond all the rubes out there, Obama is also signaling to the real masters of the United States, the military-corporate complex, that he is a "safe pair of hands" -- a competent technocrat who won't upset the imperial applecart but will faithfully follow the 60-year post-war paradigm of leaving "all options on the table" and doing "whatever it takes" to keep the great game of geopolitical dominance going strong.

What other conclusion can you draw from Obama's reference to these avatars, and his very pointed identification with them? He is saying, quite clearly, that he will practice foreign policy just as they did. And what they do? Committed, instigated, abetted and countenanced a relentless flood of crimes, murders, atrocities, deceptions, corruptions, mass destruction and state terrorism.

We've said it before and no doubt we'll say it again: an Obama presidency, like a H. Clinton presidency, will mean some measure of genuine mitigation of some of the worst depredations of the Bush Regime. There's no question about that. But no one who openly embraces the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and George Bush I, or John F. Kennedy for that matter, is going to change in any substantial way the militarist-corporate machine that has already destroyed our democracy, gutted our Constitution, corrupted our system beyond all measure (and probably beyond all repair), and killed – and keeps on killing – hundreds of thousands of innocent people, decade after decade. Given this fact, every American voter must decide, in his or her own conscience, this question: Should I act to mitigate some small measure of the mass suffering wrought by this machine; or does that action, that participation, merely legitimize the machine, and strengthen it?

That is the only question at issue in this election. For none of the prospective presidents offer any hope – audacious or otherwise – of any kind of root-and-branch reform of the imperial system, which will continue to grind on -- in its traditional, realistic, bipartisan way.http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1471/135/

Grandma Jefferson said:

It so beautifully displays the utter corruption and destruction of any semblance of a "Liberal/Progressive" wing of any party, when the candidate of "hope" and "change" throws off the kindly mask, and openly embraces what his Vichy Whore collegues have been doing all along, the establishment of the American Empire, at any price.

And to all you Obama fans out there, why the hell should anyone vote for Obama, a faux Reaganite-Bushist, when they can get the real thing with McInsane? Since I plan to vote democrat, if there is actually an election, I'm not exactly pleased to note that not only is he offering NO choice, he's joined the fucking OPPOSITION! Abandon Hope all ye who enter Here, folks.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain runs even with Democratic rival Barack Obama and narrowly leads Hillary Clinton in potential match-ups in November, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain was seen as a better steward of the economy than either Democrat despite their repeated criticism of his economic credentials. He led Obama by 3 points and Clinton by 5 points on the question of who would best manage the economy.

Obama pulled into a statistical tie with McCain at 45 percent after trailing him by 6 points last month. Clinton trails McCain by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent, gaining slightly from an 8-point deficit last month.

"Obama still does better than Clinton against McCain, but it's a very close race either way," pollster John Zogby said. "Obama and Clinton hurt each other the longer their race drags on, and McCain is getting a free pass."

Heading into the next Democratic contest in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Obama has been under heavy fire from Clinton and McCain for saying small-town residents are bitter about the ailing economy and cling to religion, guns and anti-immigrant bigotry in frustration.http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1619209020080416

I gotta ask. did someone "shop" the photo of Dubya and McCain hugging?

I have seen this photo somewhere and McCain was not grabbing his crotch, The Idjit Dubya looks to be twice as wide as he would be otherwise,,,

Yeah, it was shopped, but its essence is true. After the Bush campaign had spread rumors that McCain had fathered an illigitimate black child, back in 2000, seeing the "great war hero" hug that lump of shit was just about enough to bring my breakfast back up.

To me, Obama's response to Reverend Wright's appearance is the perfect example of political posturing. So maybe he isn't the candidate I thought he was. The hypocrisy of his most recent position on Reverend Wright is that he takes offense to the notion that he postures from time to time, as all politicians do, then immediately repostures himself in relation to the Reverend just to save his political ass, particularly after the defeats of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Here's the AP's lead:

QuoteWINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.

Obama is trying to tamp down the uproar over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a tough time in his campaign. The Illinois senator is coming off a loss in Pennsylvania to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and trying to win over white working-class voters in Indiana and North Carolina in next Tuesday's primaries.

And this passage reveals the posturing perfectly:

Quote"If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Wright said. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

. . . Facing that reality, Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

"I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

The Illinois senator said of Wright's statements Monday: "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

I'm sorry, but that's not true. "A bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth" is the most distorted description of the press conference that could have been come up with. And Obama came up with it. (But, hey, at least his political posturing is true.)

I thought Wright's appearance was excellent, and I have to wonder why Obama would imply that someone like me is slanted toward "hate" just because I recognized the truth in Wright's words:

Quote"I believe [Wright's comments] end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said.

So much for the theory of not being afraid to talk with our enemies? How about the guts to speak some radical truth for once! The fact that Obama distanced himself from Wright, after the fact, proves the reality of posturing once and for all -- whereas before it was open to interpretation. If Obama had just let this event roll off his back, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt, particularly given the hideous alternatives of Clinton and McCain. But, instead, my support of Obama as a viable candidate is under review -- but for reasons opposite from what the establishment, and Obama himself, are saying. If anyone isn't "grounded in truth," it's people who take everything the politicians and media say and do at face value, people who "fail to imagine" that, as the Reverend so accurately said, in reference to historically documented American genocide against Africans,

Quote. . .our government is capable of doing anything.

To "anything," add the murder of 3,000 Americans.

Remember when Obama accepted the resignation of one of his best foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, because she used the word "monster?" I'm sure that decision had nothing to do with political posturing either.

NOTE: This post doesn’t mean I support Ron Paul. Rather, as DeNiro said in Once upon a time in America, “It’s just the way I see things.” Peace. -GR------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm less than amused with the RP diehards who keep holding out for some "miracle at the GOP convention." It's not gonna happen. Wish I had my money back... - ph

I hold no hope for the two major machines and their stand-in meat puppets.

The machines don't listen, and have not listened for almost a century.

The good news is Both machines have generated millions of converts that are now coming to terms that they are fodder for the machine. A resource to be used, nothing more.

Now, there is a slight chance that fmr. gov. Ventura will run if a party with 50 state ballot access will run him, He said the other day He would run. This would be the Green Party or the Libertarian Party.

I would personally like to see Ron Paul bolt from the Republican machine and run with Ventura, as a team they could get support and WIN. The two of them would balance each other out.

You could generate a coalition of Greens, Libertarian, ex. veterans, totally dissatisfied demos and republicans.

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Before a crowd of cheering thousands, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois laid claim to the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night, taking a historic step toward his once-improbable goal of becoming the nation's first black president. Hillary Rodham Clinton maneuvered for the vice presidential spot on his fall ticket without conceding her own defeat.

WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- Once a year the Israel lobby in Washington known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee holds its annual convention where anyone who's anyone in the political world comes to render fealty, rather than homage. It has become a political rite of passage, like a medieval contract for exchanging goods and services, which was often military service in exchange for protection. Anyone who doesn't pass the litmus test can forget about becoming president of the United States , or senator or even congressman.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, didn't hesitate to forgo all the praise being heaped on him by the Arab media to embrace Israel and everything it stands for.

Obama struck all the right notes for several thousand Jews. He was proud to be part "of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party."

Obama said he will make sure Israel can defend itself against any threat -- "from Gaza to Tehran ." He will also implement "a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade."

The message that was broadcast all over the Arab world said, "Let me be clear. Israel 's security is sacrosanct ... non-negotiable." And "there is no greater threat to Israel -- or to the peace and stability of the region -- than Iran ."

Arab leaders and commentators reacted with anger and disbelief at Obama's speech -- the worst thing to happen to us since the 1967 Six-Day War (in which they lost the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israel), said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator. http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=90728

The pundits agree that this election is all about "change," so naturally we have two presidential nominees who present identical positions on the major foreign policy issue of the day: the looming prospect of the U.S. launching a "preventive" war against Iran. Shmuel Rosner, the U.S. correspondent for Ha'aretz, notes:

"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has just published the final version of a report by the Task Force on the Future of U.S.-Israel relations. The title is appealing: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge. But no less appealing is the list of people endorsing this report: Tony Lake and Susan Rice of the Obama campaign, Vin Weber, James Woolsey of the McCain camp."

WINEP is a think-tank associated with the America Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobbying powerhouse that has made criticism of Israel on the Hill practically verboten. Obama's recent capitulation before what is generally described as one of the most effective lobbies in Washington is underscored by Rosner:

"If you want it in a journalistic headline format, here is one way to do it: Obama, McCain advisers agree: U.S.-Israel should discuss preventive military action against Iran."

The Israelis have been threatening to launch their own strike at Iran if the U.S. fails to act, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent visit to Washington was widely seen as a thinly veiled attempt to impress on the Americans the seriousness of the Israelis' resolve to stop Iran from going nuclear. Yet the immediate target of the Israelis' wrath isn't Tehran, but Washington. The day Olmert uttered one of his more brazen threats, the price of oil went through the roof. This is the crux of the "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel: it's an exemplar of how an abusive relationship functions. We allow them to blackmail us with impunity and act against our own economic and diplomatic interests. Because that's what love – real, unconditional love – is all about…

Yes, you say, but didn't the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons program in 2003? At least that's what the combined efforts of U.S. intelligence services, codified in the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, came up with. Well, the McCain/Obama Popular Front isn't having it, because the NIE "had the unintended consequence of reducing the sense of urgency for additional pressure.

Why, one has to ask, is "additional pressure" necessary, if the Iranians ditched their weapons program five years ago? In the Bizarro World of the Israel lobby, however, such questions never come up. Everything is framed in terms that only have the most tenuous relationship to reality.

There is much talk of deterrence in the WINEP document – and effusive agreement among the McCain/Obama advisers that it's not enough, and that the Israelis are right to push for a policy of "prevention" – but no mention is made of the existence of Israel's 150 nukes, a number Jimmy Carter revealed for the first time recently.

Obama is being given his marching orders, and if anyone can get the war-weary American people hopped up about the alleged "threat" posed by nonexistent Iranian nukes, then surely it's the Great Orator himself, the candidate who wants to talk to Tehran – if only to communicate an ultimatum.

Our Israel-centric Middle Eastern policy has been the major stumbling block in the way of real change in the conduct of our foreign affairs. The spectacle of the two partisan camps collaborating in what is basically a pledge to continue business as usual in this vitally important realm is a depressing commentary on the sad state of American politics, and especially the lack of credible alternatives to the status quo.

Yes, we can always vote for a third party, but everyone knows this is only a "protest" vote, and the Lobby will triumph in the end, no matter which candidate wins the White House.http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12995

...in the guise of rejecting Bush's theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.http://www.alternet.org/rights/88950

"Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states."

CQ reports (sub. req.) that "a final deal has been reached" on FISA and telecom amnesty and "the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday." I've now just read a copy of the final "compromise" bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is:

The provision granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, Title VIII, has the exact Orwellian title it should have: "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government."

...all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.

In the U.S. now, thanks to the Democratic Congress, we'll have a new law based on the premise that the President has the power to order private actors to break the law, and when he issues such an order, the private actors will be protected from liability of any kind on the ground that the Leader told them to do it -- the very theory that the Nuremberg Trial rejected.

I'll post more in just a bit on the new warrantless eavesdropping powers George Bush is going to have under this law. They're vast and precisely the kind of powers that were abused by our Government for decades prior to FISA. Returning to that era is going to be part of the legacy not just of George Bush, but of this Democratic-controlled Congress.

Barack Obama got around to issuing a statement and -- citing what he calls "the grave threats that we face" -- he just announced that he supports this warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty "compromise."

When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry's most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.

Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country's second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Obama argued that embracing ethanol "ultimately helps our national security, because right now we're sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth." America's oil dependence, he added, "makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term."

Nowadays, when Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, "he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy."

Obama's lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.

Not long after arriving in the Senate, Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation's largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/23/america/23ethanol.php

Barack Obama’s rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.

This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.

The ACLU says it represents “an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.”

Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”

Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.”

But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.

Obama said it “firmly reestablishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance.”

But the ACLU notes that the bill “permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment.”

What’s more, in the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues, a process that the ACLU says can take two months.

Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise “a farce” and “political cover.”

Says Feingold: “Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they’ve even read it.”

Now that the primary season is over, we can see that the clear winner was Hillary Clinton.

Oh, I know. Barack Obama got the most votes and the most delegates, and he’ll be the Democratic presidential nominee this August, but increasingly, it’s becoming obvious that he’s just a pretty wrapper. Sneak a peak inside the wrapper and you’ll find Hillary Clinton inside. Look at the facts.

No sooner did the last votes get counted in Montana, than Obama hied himself off to Washington to show his fealty to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he promised to do whatever Israel wanted. You would have thought he was Bush or Hillary, so fulsome was his promise to unquestioningly back the worst policies and actions of Israel’s criminally insane right-wing government. Claim all of Jerusalem for the Jewish state? Fine by him. Starve and terrorize a million people in Gaza? No problemo. Attack Iran to prevent a merely suspected nuclear program from eventually producing a possible bomb? Okay. Negotiate with Hamas? Never.

Then there was the FISA and Fourth Amendment-violating campaign of spying by the National Security Agency. Some members of Congress and the courts have been trying for years to find out what Bush and Cheney have really been up to with this program, but they’ve been stymied by the administration’s insistence that the phone companies, who enabled most of the spying, are immune from prosecution and don’t have to surrender records of, or talk about what they actually did. Congress, with the help of a spineless Democratic majority in both houses, came up in June with a bill that endorses the spying and gives retroactive immunity to the phone companies. 15 Senators—all Democrats-- opposed that wretched sell-out of the Constitution and the American people. Sen. Obama supported it, just like Clinton.

When the Supreme Court, in a rare exception to a rash of reactionary rulings in the past few weeks, overturned a state law authorizing the death penalty for the rape of a child, Obama stood up for the death penalty, saying that he thought states should have the right to kill anyone who would sexually abuse a child. I guess he must think the states should be able to kill people convicted of killing someone too, since murder has to be at least as nasty as child rape. Another Clinton position. Never mind that most of the people who get the death penalty are persons of color, and that almost all the 4000 people on America’s bulging death rows are either poor, desperately poor, retarded or simply insane. Never mind that rape is one of the most likely crimes to lead to wrongful convictions.

Barack was out there dissing black dads, too, charging them, as a class, with abandonment of their children, even though studies show that black fathers are no less likely to abandon their kids than are white dads. Okay, that’s not really a Hillary position. It’s more akin to Bill Clinton’s attacks on prominent blacks like Jesse Jackson or Sister Soulja during his campaigns for higher office.

It’s getting harder and harder to see any light between Obama’s and Hillary’s positions on the Iraq War too, what with Obama backing away from his earlier campaign pledge to end the war within 16 months of taking office and saying instead that he would “listen to the generals” and that withdrawal would depend upon the situation on the ground.

Finally, Obama, after showing a remarkable ability to inspire tons of small donations and support from individuals, and to fund a huge national campaign without much in the way of corporate support, is greedily slurping from Hillary’s cesspool of corporate backers, now that she’s out of the way. Soon, he’ll be wallowing in tainted cash from Wall Street commercial and investment banks and hedge funds, telecom companies, defense contractors, Big Pharma companies, the HMO industry, and the entertainment industry. He’ll be owned like just about every other politician in Washington.

The transmogrification of an upstart people’s candidate for “change” into just another front man for the corporatocracy will be complete. Hillary will have won, but in the corporal form of Barack Obama.

The joke, of course, is that this evocation by Obama of his inner Clinton is not going to win him many votes, and may in fact lose him far more than he gains. Being Clinton, after all, didn’t win it for Hillary Clinton. It was Obama’s differences from Clinton that won him the primary votes.

Meanwhile, those Hillary primary voters Obama seems so intent on pursuing at the expense of the progressive vote—the pro-Israel hawks in New York and Florida, the “hard-working whites” of the West Virginia hollers, the Pennsylvania hills and the flatlands of Ohio and Indiana—aren’t going to vote for him just because he adopts Hillary’s positions. They’ll want the real deal, not just a front man posing as a front woman, so they’ll go for John McCain (just as they would have in November had Hillary won the nomination).

You gotta ask why a guy who had it all going for him is suddenly making such incredibly bad strategic decisions. It has to be either that he’s brought on board too many Clinton backers, or that his own strategists have lost confidence in their own game plan. In his bid for Democratic Party “unity” Obama has sold whatever soul he once had.

Keith Olbermann Needs to Take Obama to Task for His FISA BetrayalObama, if elected, will not throw out these laws, or shut down the NSA’s warrantless surveillance, he will enhance them. In fact, once elected, Obama will likely organize and unleash his promised National Security Force, a secret national police force larger than anything over at the Pentagon.

It’s all partisan double talk. Far too many Democrats, apparently including Mr. Olbermann, are not really interested in restoring the Constitution and the republic. It’s all about getting their guy in office. Obama revealed his true colors when he voted for the FISA "compromise." Once in office, the Democrats will make the same old flaccid excuses now made by the neocons in order to continue the erosion of our liberty.http://www.infowars.com/?p=4051

Aug 19, 2008Obama Echoes Biden Echoing McCainSo much for that progressive foreign policy you were expecting in an Obama Administration. Obama strikes a pose on the Russia-Georgia conflict: "I’m proud to join my friend, Senator Joe Biden, in calling for an additional $1 billion in reconstruction assistance for the people of Georgia."

Any money for South Ossetia in there? Or how about Joe Biden saying "Russia’s actions in Georgia will have consequences?” You on board with that Sen. Obama? Or his, via Greenwald and Billmon, vigorous lobbying for expanding NATO to Georgia?

It was the pro-Israeli crowd in the Republican Party that pulled the old switcheroo and refocussed on the Middle East rather than Eurasia. Now, powerful members of the US foreign policy establishment (Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke) have regrouped behind the populist "cardboard" presidential candidate Barak Obama and are preparing to redirect America's war efforts to the Asian theater. Obama offers voters a choice of wars not a choice against war. -- Mike Whitney, August 13, 2008http://www.dissidentvoice.org/author/MikeWhitney/

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008Jewish Democrats? This is the Face of Your Party?

Eeeeew. Disgusting.You might as well round it out and invite Cynthia McKenney, David Duke, and Hitler.

Carter to speak at Democratic gathering

Former Democratic president Jimmy Carter will be among those appearing on Monday night in Denver, the first day of the four-day convention. The Republican convention will run from September 1-4 in Minneapolis.

Some Democrats are also displeased. "I don't think that seeing Jimmy Carter makes anyone who cares about Israel comfortable," said one Jewish Democrat attending next week's convention, who acknowledged, however, "He's a former president of the United States from the Democratic party and they're almost obliged to give him a speaking role."

A Democratic Party official pointed out that former living presidents were accommodated by both parties, and stressed that Congressional party leaders as well presumptive nominee Barack Obama had publicly disagreed with Carter's attitude toward Israel.

Because of that stance, according to Democratic party sources, Carter's profile at the convention has been downgraded, with him relegated to speaking early on Monday when audience attention should be at a minimum. He is not expected to discuss the Middle East.

Democrats are also counting on other speakers popular with the Jewish community to compensate for his appearance. Jewish legislators Robert Wexler, a representative from Florida and an early backer of Obama, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, and Rahm Emmanuel, the House's Democratic Caucus chairman and a representative from Obama's home state of Illinois, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell are all scheduled to appear. Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom large numbers of Jews preferred over her rival Obama, will be the "headline, prime-time speaker" on Tuesday.

The GOP also have a number of Jewish speakers, including Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, the state hosting the convention, and Gov. Linda Lingle of Hawaii, the state where Obama grew up. The most prominent, however, will be Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who two presidential elections ago took the stage at the Democratic convention as Al Gore's running mate. http://israeljewishnews.blogspot.com/2008/08/jewish-democrats-this-is-face-of-your.html

Obama Capitulates – to the Israel lobbyDon't look to Barack Obama for deliverance from this looming conflict. In his speech to AIPAC, he clearly signed on to the Lobby's latest project, departing from his prepared text to declare:

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

"Everything" includes murdering tens of thousands of Iranians, mostly civilians – driving the price of oil up above $300 a barrel and destroying the US economy – and involving us in a war that will make the Iraq conflict look like a Sunday school picnic. And for what? http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is a seasoned congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and national security issues, which will help blunt Republican attacks on Obama's lack of experience in these areas.

Matt Dorf, the Jewish outreach coordinator for the Democratic National Committee, welcomed the announcement and cited Biden's strong Israel credentials.

"Joe Biden has proven himself to be a strong and passionate supporter of Israel through his long Senate career," Dorf said. "People say all the time, 'Israel has no better friend than...' and fill in the name of a politician. But with Biden, it's not just a line. Israel would have no better friend in the vice president's office than Joe Biden."

Dorf pointed to Biden's many trips to Israel over the last 36 years, and his ties with the Jewish community. He also was well received when he delivered an impassioned foreign policy speech to National Jewish Democratic activists last year while still in the presidential race.

In 2001, during the second intifada, Biden defended Israel's actions of targeted killings against members of terrorist organizations, saying that if they were targeting Americans, "our FBI would target them, attempt to find them, and if could not capture them would use lethal force to deal with them... so I don't call that assassination... We would track them down and find them and if we could not capture them, we would kill them."

To anyone who really believed Barack Obama's candidacy represented "hope" and "change," the selection of Joe Biden as his running mate should put that illusion to rest. Antiwar activists point to Biden's vote in favor of authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq, but even worse was his behavior in the run-up to the invasion.

Today he wails that he didn't know, that nobody knew the truth about Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction," but it cannot be said that Biden was all that eager to discover the truth, either. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 2002, Biden was in a position to ensure that a real debate took place on the issue. Yet, in the hearings held by his committee, not a single antiwar "expert" was called: all were spear-carriers for the War Party.

Biden has been one of the War Party's most reliable servants, endorsing as "absolutely correct" then-President Clinton's attack on hapless Yugoslavia – like Iraq, another example of a war in which the "enemy" represented no danger to the U.S. and whose crimes were vastly overstated. This earned him the approbation of John McCain, who, on April 11, 1999, declared to Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "We need Joe Biden for secretary of state." An astounded Russert asked: "Is that an offer by President McCain?" McCain replied: "Absolutely!"

The "new politics," it turns out, is pretty much the same as the old politics, of which Biden – a Washington insider for the past 35 years – is the exemplar. The War Party is jazzed at this sign that Obama isn't going to give them much trouble, especially when it comes to their latest project: demonizing Russia. Just before winning the vice-presidential sweepstakes, Biden took a trip to Georgia and returned bloviating at top speed, sounding for all the world like John McCain. As the Washington Post reported:

"Some Democrats have been pleading with Obama to use McCain's tough response to the Russian invasion of Georgia to paint him as a trigger-happy interventionist who would risk bringing a war-weary nation into military conflict in regions where the United States has no interest. For those Democrats, Biden's conclusions from his trip may be a disappointment.

Consultations with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, Georgian Parliamentary Speaker David Bakradze, and U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John Tefft left the Democratic senator seemingly as angry as McCain is."

"I left the country convinced that Russia's invasion of Georgia may be the one of the most significant event to occur in Europe since the end of communism. The claims of Georgian atrocities that provided the pretext for Russia's invasion are rapidly being disproved by international observers, and the continuing presence of Russian forces in the country has severe implications for the broader region. The war that began in Georgia is no longer about that country alone. It has become a question of whether and how the West will stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region."

Georgian atrocities? Oh, never mind those! A Georgian invasion? It never happened – just ask those "international observers." It's time to get on Russia's case. It's time to start saber-rattling and spreading the conflict throughout the region. That's what Biden, who poses as a foreign policy expert, wants U.S. policy to be, and what it will be if and when Obama gets in the White House. No, he's not Cheney, but that doesn't mean he won't be Cheney-esque. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13354

So Obama goes on Fox, of all places, and admits he was "wrong about the surge." Rack up 10 points for McCain. Then he regurgitates all the standard neocon bullshit about "evil Iran" and the "war on terror..." And still, millions and millions of our sadly, obviously retarded countrymen will go on thinking that this turd in the punchbowl represents "change we can believe in." Christ on a crutch...

The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.

The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”

Obama also told FOX News Thursday he “absolutely” believes the United States is fighting a War on Terror, with the enemy being, “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.”

The Myth about the Troop SurgeIt is a mistake to view the troop surge as anything but a short term band-aid for the wounds in Iraq. The increased level of troops has two goals but those goals are mutually exclusive. The first goal is to quell the acute violence that has plagued Iraq with the objective of making the U.S. troop pull out easier. For this goal "the surge" may be successful, still pending the last part of this objective. However; the other goal, of obtaining stability and peace in Iraq is actually undermined by the increased level of troops. American troops are not neutralizing and pacifying the violence in Iraq, they are merely putting a temporary lid on its intensity. The opposition is not being destroyed. It is being dispersed. Shiite opposition is merely playing a waiting game, moving out of rifle range temporarily. What is worse, the surge has weakened rather than bolstered the present Iraq regime. It has made the regime even more dependent on American support for its existence. http://www.politicalbull.net/the_troop_surge_myth_and_failure.html

TERRE HAUTE, Indiana (Reuters) - Presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama will appear together on Sept. 11 in New York at the site where the World Trade Center collapsed after being hit by hijacked planes in 2001.

"All of us came together on 9/11 -- not as Democrats or Republicans -- but as Americans. In smoke-filled corridors and on the steps of the Capitol; at blood banks and at vigils -- we were united as one American family," the two senators said in a joint statement issued on Saturday.

"On Thursday, we will put aside politics and come together to renew that unity, to honor the memory of each and every American who died, and to grieve with the families and friends who lost loved ones."

The event will mark the first time McCain, the Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democratic one, will appear together since they were nominated to run in the November 4 presidential election.

"We will also give thanks for the firefighters, police and emergency responders who set a heroic example of selfless service, and for the men and women who serve today in defense of the freedom and security that came under attack in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania," the statement said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080906/us_nm/usa_politics_sept11_dc_2

Police kicked protester Benjamin Harms off Belmont University campus this week before the presidential debate for the crime of “trespassing” as hundreds of mindless Obama supporters cheered the outright violation of free speech.

The protagonist’s attempts to succinctly explain the banker bailout scam - which Barack Obama has fully supported - in clear and concise terms was met with the mindless bleating of “Obama, Obama, Obama” - perfectly underscoring the vacuum of Obama’s empty platitudes of “change” and the deluded idolatry of his supporters.

“Obama and McCain are the same,” chanted another demonstrator as police and security thugs moved in to ensure that anyone that dared use their freedom of speech to communicate a real message was hastily ejected, while the Obama cult members were left completely alone to continue their pointless rhetoric.

“Kick him out, kick him out,” chanted the Obama-ites as the group tried to explain to the police the meaning of the first amendment.

“I am now being escorted away by police from the scene because I don’t have a right to free speech,” said Harms, to which the Obama crowd responded with whoops, cries and hollers of “yeeeeahhhh” in celebration of the fact that cops were crushing the first amendment.

“I have a right to speak my mind just like all of you do,” added Harms.

“They don’t like what I’m saying so I’m being escorted by the police off of the campus.”

Police threatened to arrest Harms and refused to tell him where the property line of the campus was. They were also unable to tell him why the use of a bullhorn was illegal, enforcing a claimed law of which they had no knowledge. http://www.infowars.com/?p=5175

Police Escort from Nashville Presidential Debate

Commentsbigpaulyb wrote:So if you are pro-Obama or pro-McCain, you are not trespassing, but if you are neither, you are? That makes no sense.